[db-wg] revisiting rpsl-related set of rcf documents?

On 2015-11-19 16:38, Tomas Hlavacek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On 11/19/2015 02:20 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>> Wilfried,
>>
>> At 2015-11-19 14:40:53 +0200
>> Wilfried Woeber <woeber at cc.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>>
>>> Following up on the discussion here, during the DB-WG session in Bucharest,
>>> where changes to different aspects of using the RIPE registry database
>>>
>>> - including a reference to discussions relating to cross-RIR authorisation -
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask the following question to the community:
>>>
>>> Is it about time to revisit the set of RFCs and either get them updated to
>>> properly reflect the (more) current reality,
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> consciously have them declared historic and overtaken by events?
>>>
>>> What's your point of view?
>>
>> hm... hard to say. Certainly RFC 2622 is a stunningly bad RFC, and RFC
>> 2725 is better but hardly great (I had questions while implementing
>> RFC 2622 in the past and was told "look at the RtConfig code to see
>> how it works" when I found inconsistencies). RFC 2769 is an interesting
>> read, if you like science fiction. ;)
> 
> Is it only a matter of bad RFCs?

Probably not exclusively, but imho this is a major aspect.

> From my point of view it might help to have also software that would
> help with producing RPSL. I can imagine a lot of stuff ranging from a
> simple HTML form that would guide people through selection of their
> peers and setting basic filters, to things like reversing RtConfig and
> pre-create RPSL from Cisco/Juniper/... configs.

Interesting idea!

> As the matter of fact I thought about creating some helper software, but
> out of desperation induced by reading RFC 2622 I rather created a
> (incomplete) RPSL parser in Python and ran the measurements I presented
> on today's WG.
> 
> Which leads me to the question: Do you think that it make sense to put
> an effort into creating a software for current RPSL?


I don't have a strong opinion on this one. That’s the reason why 
I'd like to see contributions to this discussion from the wider community.

> Or would it be
> better to wait for revisions of the formal documents or even for RDL to
> be finalized?

I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the pointer!

Alas, when I had a look, the IETF page came back with: "IESG state Expired"
and "This Internet-Draft is no longer active. [...]". Is there any follow-up
activity in the IETF?

> Tomas

Wilfried